Peters Auto Sales Ltd. et al. v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., (1990) 63 Man.R.(2d) 295 (QB)

• Judge: Hirschfield, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1990), 63 Man.R.(2d) 295 (QB)

Peters Auto Sales v. Chrysler Can. (1990), 63 Man.R.(2d) 295 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Peters Auto Sales Ltd. and Harry Peters (plaintiffs) v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (defendant)

(Suit No. CI 88-01-29163)

Indexed As: Peters Auto Sales Ltd. et al. v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Hirschfield, J.

February 20, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff franchisee sued the defendant franchisor for damages for breach of the franchise agreement and the duty of good faith. The franchisee claimed general damages for loss of goodwill and business reputation as well as aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action, but provisionally assessed damages.

Franchises - Topic 2022

Franchise agreement - Breach - What constitutes - The corporate plaintiff (franchisee) had an AMC/Jeep/Renault dealership - Each franchise agreement had a fixed expiry date; the franchisee would continue business until a new agreement was signed - American Motors (franchisor) allowed the franchisee to sell a competitor's products from the same premises - Chrysler, purchaser of American Motors and its franchises, refused permission for a dual dealership and refused to extend the franchise - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that Chrysler did not breach the agreement, which simply expired naturally - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Franchises - Topic 2065

Franchise agreement - Duties of franchisor - During negotiations for franchise - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that during negotiations for a franchise, the franchisor was under no duty to advise a potential franchisee of the existence or nature of other offers - The franchisor had an absolute right to treat the applications as confidential - See paragraph 22.

Franchises - Topic 2067

Franchise agreement - Duties of franchisor - Duty of good faith - The corporate plaintiff (franchisee) had an AMC/ Jeep/Renault dealership - Each franchise agreement had a fixed expiry date; the franchisee would continue business until a new agreement was signed - American Motors (franchisor) allowed the franchisee to sell a competitor's products from the same premises - Chrysler, purchaser of American Motors and its franchises, refused permission for a dual dealership and refused to extend the franchise - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that Chrysler did not breach the duty of good faith, even if one was owed - See paragraphs 25 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners of Police (1982), 37 O.R.(2d) 277, refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

R.J. Handlon and E. Beaupre, for the plaintiffs;

M.T. Green and Kelly Dixon, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Hirschfield, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, whose decision was delivered on February 20, 1990.